Hi Daryl, Garth and Bill, the plane I'm looking at is a 1964 Cessna 172 with a 180 hp lycoming 0-360 A1A, 2380 TTAF 608 SMOH, new Wipline 2350 installed in 2010, powerflow exhaust 2012, Horton stol, paint and interior done in 2002, basic avionics, 40 gal. Fuel, overall better than average condition, price $110,000 US. Is this reasonable? Most of my flying will be shorter trips (2-3 hours) with one passenger. I had a flight in a 172 160 hp on strait floats, half fuel and it was good. Would the extra 20 hp and powerflo exhaust compensate for the extra weight of the amphibs? I like the husky as well but doesn't seem like much room, Souds like a nice super cub Bill, is that with the 160 hp engine?Thanks guys your input is appreciated.

I am SURE not an expert but I know a pretty fair number of guys use a 172 for float training and ratings. Granted that is straight floats but it would seem to me that this airplane would meet your needs. I think a test flight with the owner would answer your questions. My cub has a 180hp 0-360 in it.

A 172 is a great plane for light loads & sealevel adventures,they use them here for training as well on straight floats & there is an Amphibs 172 on my airport but I don't know the fellow or I'd go ask him about his performance next time I take a day off.The simplest way to figure out if any particular aircraft will meet your needs is to figure out an average load that you will carry & the distance that you want to travel with that load & then see if the numbers you come up with will work with that aircraft.A nice advantage to Amphibs is that you can leave fuel at home & pick some up on the way,that option is getting more challenging on straight floats.

I'm no expert on 172's however my experience is that they seem to be priced higher than a comparable 180 or 182. I haven't looked recently, but for $110k, I think you can get a decent 180. Depending on the year, a 180 will have a useful load in the order of 900-1200 lbs, and it will get that off the water without too much hesitation. It's 230 HP, so it will use a little more fuel than a 180 HP. My personal experience is that you may get a 172 and it's fine for lighter loads but then because it's got 4 seats, you'll instinctively want to throw more load into it. You might find a 172 with a useful load with 900 lbs, but it will never perform like a 180 with 900 lbs in it.

I'm obviously partial to the 182, but your not likely to get something real decent for $110k. Most did not come with factory floats, so you have to spend $20k to put a float kit on it, then another $20-$40k on floats, depending if you want used or new. For new amphibs, add another 20k to the top end. An equivalent hp 182 won't perform as good as a 180. For me, I wanted a larger cabin (4" wider than 180 and 185) and I also wanted the tricycle for flying wheels in winter. Unfortunately when you get into it, and start adding all the other crap like 330HP motors, it gets a little higher than a $110k investment

I'm not trying to talk you out of the 172 - with the options you list, it's a nice plane, but I would encourage you to research all your options thoroughly before you pull the trigger.

Again - its all personal preference, and so without trying to insult anyone , i'd take something like this over a 172, particularly if it is the same or less money. It its a far more capable float plane, especially with a PPONK (which is what my 182 had before i put the 550 in it).

There are amateur built/ home built aircraft that could also meet the payload/ range requirements as well, a little more research could produce a wealth of information.A look in trade a plane type publications might give you an idea on the cost of acquiring one of these as well.

There's a lot of different airplanes fitting the mission profile. 1000MSL and 2 People on board can be handled by most. I got my seaplane rating in a straight float 172 with a 160 horse engine. The only Amphib 172 I ever flew was a 172XP and it wasn't a Rocket, compared to its wheeled counterpart. Most of my training was in a 180 horse 172 and there was quite a difference, especially with the drooping ailerons. Other types included the Supercub, Husky, 180, 185 and 206 (Amphib) as well as a few flights with a 208.

The guy who's all happy with his Powerflow exhaust (look up Float Pilot) hasn't been online here since June of this year. I think Tim's (look up Tim McCormack) 172 has a 180 Horse engine and is quite a STOL monster. He visited recently, so maybe someone can reach him better than me. Both of their airplanes are not sitting on Amphibs, if I remember correctly.

Again - I don't remember any particular member with a Amphib 172 on this forum.

110K appears to be a steep price for a 172 with 14 year old paint and interior and 5 year old floats. Could be a beauty, too... no pictures, no telling.We sold a 1984 2000TT 172 RG with a nice avionics stack and in perfect condition, fresh 3 Blade Prop & Gov w/ low time engine, 9/10 P & I for a lousy $65K.

Klaus can tell more about Wip floats and their weak-points and maintenance & upkeep requirements, than anyone else I know.

The Wip amphib floats are a big part of the price. I'm guessing a little but I suspect those floats new are close to 55K. A new set of 2100 amphibs with rigging and install is close to 50K. Even used you are looking at 30K plus. In your search you might have to buy a plane on floats, separate the two, sell the plane, find the plane you want and put the floats on. Lots of time, investments that may not work out, hidden costs etc. But the reality is there are not all that many float planes out there, even fewer on amphibs, and corrosion is ALWAYS a concern. It seems easy when you grab a Trade-a-Plane, but when you really start looking, it gets harder and harder. Floats have always been expensive. Reading the old bush flying books tells the story. Joe, bag of donuts, bush pilot buys a new Stinson for 2200 dollars in the 1930's then spends 1500 for floats. The floats cost over half the value of the plane. Same in the 40's, 50's, 60's and now. Floats have always been expensive, and amphibs are a quantum leap over straights. I paid 12500 for a set of good Baumann straight floats a few years ago. Amphibs used are 2.5 to 3X higher. Unfortunately we don't all live on a lake up North so straight floats are a real challenge.

The bottom line on this is money. It just takes LOTS of money. That is where ALL of mine has gone. The rest I just wasted.

Eight years ago I bought a set of Edo 2790 Amphibs, had them disassembled, stripped of paint, new bottoms; repainted & all running gear rebuilt to new specs (basically they will be new floats) & I'm not done paying yet & the plane still needs to be set up for them & I'm into them for over $35,000 cdn so far. Considering that I bought my 1970 Cessna 185 for $29,000 it's not a small chunk of change, had I gone new Amphibs I'd be out over $100,000 just for the Amphibs. Not included are the estimated extra costs for insurance, or maintenance.

Only so many C-172 left the factory as seaplanes. For some reason that has made them more expensive than they should be.

A 160 horse C-172 with a Power-Flow exhaust on PK-2300s will work for two people and full fuel in cooler temps, depending on the length of the lakes. It is marginal in a cross wind with full fuel. With partial fuel I have been able to haul an extra passenger in the back seat on cooler days. The long original Power-Flow on a 150 or 160 horse recovers about 16-18 horsepower that was lost with the stock exhaust system.

A 180 horse C-172 on a good set of STRAIGHT floats like Baumann 2550s is a nice plane. A Power-Flow on a 180 horse adds a very slight advantage. Maybe around 8-10 horse power re-gained.

Adding the extra weight of amphib floats to a 180 horse C-172 will give you the performance of a 150 or 160 horse C-172. So you will have a marginal 2 person aircraft.

Actual take-off distance and the distance needed to clear houses and trees is much more important than how many seconds it takes. For example, I can get off the water with my 160hp,(PFE) C-172 in about the same distance as I could with my old 90 horse PA-11 Cub Special. ( with about a 5 knot wind on the water. On glassy water the Cessna is pretty doggy)

HOWEVER, as I race towards the end of my lake in the C-172 I am blasting along at 60 to 65 knots ( 70-75MPH) as I climb. The lake is passing by pretty fast. On the other hand, the the little 90 Horse Cub would climb at 50 mph. (43 knots), thus I am over the lake for a longer and SAFER period of time.

By the time I run out of Lake, the Cessna is lucky to be 300 feet above the water with two people on board. The little 90 HP Cub would be 600 to 700 feet above the lake level.

Marginal seaplane performance in warmer weather or higher altitude lakes is just asking to find yourself embedded into the side of a 3/4 million dollar lake-side house owned by a bunch of lawyers.